Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 244 posts

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#41

Post by kwhitefoot »

Sevii wrote: post #29
idiotsecant wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It boggles the mind how many people are opposed to collective bargaining, of all things. Give the least powerful in society a fraction of an ounce of power and it makes some people completely irrational.

A lot of people blame unions for killing the American dominance of car manufacturing worldwide. And the general de-industrialization of the US. It was a big hit to peoples conceptualization of the country.

How do they explain VAG being the biggest or nearly the biggest car manufacturer in the world then? Strong unions are a big feature of the German industrial landscape.

It's not unions that killed America dominance of car manufacturing it's the them versus us zero-sum attitude that pervades US life. Both the manufacturers and the unions in the US seem guilty in this respect.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#42

Post by klyrs »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #37
advisedwang wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately those in a " supervisor" role are explicitly excluded from the main US labor protection [1]. Amazon could fire them anyway. [1] https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-right...

Sounds like US labour legislation needs to be scrapped and restarted.

Problem being that the ones interested in scrapping them aren't interested in replacing them.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#43

Post by jollybean »

joshe wrote: post #39

To me a more reasonable explanation than any in the article is that after losing the vote, Amazon looked into the warehouse and decided part of the problem was that the managers were making the situation worse. This could have been that the rsi injury complaints were true and unaddressed promptly. Or that the managers came off as cold in communications. Or 5 other things they could have done better.

In Amazon's purview, 'the problem' is that the 'union was formed'.

It's a signal to the managers of the other warehouses that if a union is formed on their watch, they are toast.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#44

Post by devoutsalsa »

Bilal_io wrote: post #27
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's confusing why investors haven't pushed harder for AWS to be spun-off into its own entity.

Why would they do that when one entity's losses can be used as a tax write-off for the other entity's profits.

Investors like profit and they like growth. The moment a business unit isn’t growing or profitable, you need to start justifying why you’re keeping it around.

On the topic of write offs, losing money isn’t great unless it’s used to fuel obscene growth. You don’t spend $2 to save $1. The “we lose money on every sale, but make up for it on volume” model doesn’t work in the long run. More simply, a business is worth the value of all future cash flow, and it’s that simple.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#45

Post by rolandog »

jollybean wrote: post #43
joshe wrote: post #39

To me a more reasonable explanation than any in the article is that after losing the vote, Amazon looked into the warehouse and decided part of the problem was that the managers were making the situation worse. This could have been that the rsi injury complaints were true and unaddressed promptly. Or that the managers came off as cold in communications. Or 5 other things they could have done better.

In Amazon's purview, 'the problem' is that the 'union was formed'. It's a signal to the managers of the other warehouses that if a union is formed on their watch, they are toast.

Wouldn't it be ironic that this makes Senior Managers realize it's in their best interest to join a union?

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#46

Post by avgcorrection »

joshe wrote: post #39

To me a more reasonable explanation than any in the article is that after losing the vote, Amazon looked into the warehouse and decided part of the problem was that the managers were making the situation worse. This could have been that the rsi injury complaints were true and unaddressed promptly. Or that the managers came off as cold in communications. Or 5 other things they could have done better.

Could be many reasons I guess. But maybe we should apply the Labor–Capital Razor: what signal does this send to the remaining managers? And what are they likely to do in response?

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#47

Post by avgcorrection »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #11

> Several were veterans of the company, with more than six years of experience I think it's sad that we have an industry, where someone with six years' experience, is considered a "veteran." But it sounds like Amazon is sending a message to managers of other warehouses, to go as low as possible, to fight unionization. Expect things to get ugly.

I think the sad part is getting fired over union association.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#48

Post by avgcorrection »

idiotsecant wrote: post #18
Dreako wrote: post #4

As they should!

It boggles the mind how many people are opposed to collective bargaining, of all things. Give the least powerful in society a fraction of an ounce of power and it makes some people completely irrational.

Especially in the face of apparent aggressive anti-union behavior by the company.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#49

Post by stormbrew »

rolandog wrote: post #45
jollybean wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Amazon's purview, 'the problem' is that the 'union was formed'. It's a signal to the managers of the other warehouses that if a union is formed on their watch, they are toast.

Wouldn't it be ironic that this makes Senior Managers realize it's in their best interest to join a union?

Most unions don’t allow managers to join, as they’re generally considered to be part of capital’s collective bargaining side, if not part of capital themselves. I think most modern labor theory includes a “professional-managerial class” to account for this.

There’s an argument to be had about where this line makes sense in modern megacorps but local managers in blue collar work tend to hold a lot of power over their employees in particular regardless of the shape of the corporation they’re under, so it would be surprising if they could.

Edit: fair points in the replies about management unions and that I was focused on a North American perspective. I was interpreting the post I replied to as saying the managers would join the union (as in the same one), but they didn't actually say that.

I can definitely believe that things would be different in a less union-adversarial environment. But it's still pretty unlikely that warehouse bosses at amazon would be welcome in the same union as the workers, or be likely to manage to unionize themselves successfully. The incentives just don't really align well in this context: corporate has too many carrots and sticks.

Re: Amazon abruptly fires senior managers tied to unionized warehouse

#50

Post by jollybean »

rolandog wrote: post #45
jollybean wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Amazon's purview, 'the problem' is that the 'union was formed'. It's a signal to the managers of the other warehouses that if a union is formed on their watch, they are toast.

Wouldn't it be ironic that this makes Senior Managers realize it's in their best interest to join a union?

To be like Lukashenko and read the winds of change and to get with the winning team. They have no power otherwise, they're just cogs in the system.

Influence to avoid having the union, but if one is going to form ... then beg to join it.

Bend like a reed in the wind, it's all they can hope to do.

Post reply on HN